Racial Disparities in Preventable Adverse Events Attributed to Poor Care Coordination Reported in a National Study of Older US Adults

Medical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura C. Pinheiro ◽  
Evgeniya Reshetnyak ◽  
Monika M. Safford ◽  
Lisa M. Kern
2009 ◽  
Vol 209 (3) ◽  
pp. S98
Author(s):  
Anand Singla ◽  
Melissa M. Murphy ◽  
Sing-Chau Ng ◽  
YouFu Li ◽  
Jennifer F. Tseng ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 408-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Aranaz-Andres ◽  
C. Aibar-Remon ◽  
J. Vitaller-Burillo ◽  
J. Requena-Puche ◽  
E. Terol-Garcia ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e035238
Author(s):  
Fátima Jiménez-Pericás ◽  
María Teresa Gea Velázquez de Castro ◽  
María Pastor-Valero ◽  
Carlos Aibar Remón ◽  
Juan José Miralles ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo determine whether isolated patients admitted to hospital have a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs), to identify their nature, impact and preventability.DesignProspective cohort study with isolated and non-isolated patients.SettingOne public university hospital in the Valencian Community (southeast Spain).ParticipantsWe consecutively collected 400 patients, 200 isolated and 200 non-isolated, age ≥18 years old, to match according to date of entry, admission department, sex, age (±5 years) and disease severity from April 2017 to October 2018. Exclusion criteria: patients age <18 years old and/or reverse isolation patients.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome as the AE, defined according to the National Study of Adverse Effects linked to Hospitalisation (Estudio Nacional Sobre los Efectos Adversos) criteria. Cumulative incidence rates and AE incidence density rates were calculated.ResultsThe incidence of isolated patients with AEs 16.5% (95% CI 11.4% to 21.6%) compared with 9.5% (95% CI 5.4% to 13.6%) in non-isolated (p<0.03). The incidence density of patients with AEs among isolated patients was 11.8 per 1000 days/patient (95% CI 7.8 to 15.9) compared with 4.3 per 1000 days/patient (95% CI 2.4 to 6.3) among non-isolated patients (p<0.001). The incidence of AEs among isolated patients was 18.5% compared with 11% for non-isolated patients (p<0.09). Among the 37 AEs detected in 33 isolated patients, and the 22 AEs detected in 19 non-isolated patients, most corresponded to healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) for both isolated and non-isolated patients (48.6% vs 45.4%). There were significant differences with respect to the preventability of AEs, (67.6% among isolated patients compared with 52.6% among non-isolated patients).ConclusionsAEs were significantly higher in isolated patients compared with non-isolated patients, more than half being preventable and with HAIs as the primary cause. It is essential to improve training and the safety culture of healthcare professionals relating to the care provided to this type of patient.


Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 873-873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Biondi ◽  
Martin Schrappe ◽  
Paola Di Lorenzo ◽  
Anders Castor ◽  
Giovanna Lucchini ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 873 Background. Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) ALL accounts for 3–5% of pediatric ALL. An international survey on 640 children diagnosed between 1995 and 2005 and treated with chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation (SCT) without the use of tyrosin kinase inhibitors (TKI) recently reported an overall 7-year event free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) of 31.2% and 44.2%, respectively. In those years, only limited experience was accumulated on the use of Imatinib (IM) for children with Ph+ leukemia. The EsPhALL study was designed as an intergroup, open-label, randomized Phase II/III study, within the I-BFM-SG network, to assess the safety and efficacy of IM in association with chemotherapy. Ten national study groups participated in the study: AIEOP, BFM-G/CH, COALL, FRALLE, NOPHO, MRC, DCOG, CPH, PINDA and HONG KONG. Methods. Patients 1 to 18 years of age diagnosed with Ph+ ALL were eligible to the study. After the induction phase according to national treatment protocol, patients were classified as Good Risk (GR) or Poor Risk (PR) according to their response to treatment. GR patients were those who achieved both the early response (i.e. blast cell count <1000/ml in peripheral blood after 7 days of prednisone and a single dose of intrathecal methotrexate or M1/M2 bone marrow at day 15 or M1 at day 21) and the complete remission after the frontline Induction course (1st complete remission, CR1). They were randomized to receive IM in combination with chemotherapy (GR-IM) or chemotherapy alone (GR-noIM). PR patients (those who did not achieved early response or CR1 or both) received IM in combination with chemotherapy. Due to the availability of external evidence, the randomization in GR was stopped in 2009 and an amended trial started, with all patients receiving IM continuously. The chemotherapy regimen was modeled upon a BFM high risk backbone and IM was delivered at the dose of 300 mg/m2/day. SCT in CR1 was recommended for all PR patients (any donor) and for GR patients if a genotype-matched donor (9/10 or 10/10 alleles) was available. The primary analysis for the randomized question (ITT) was on disease-free survival (DFS) in GR and EFS in PR patients, not censoring for SCT in CR1, with comparison based on the log-rank test. Results. Between 01-Jan-2004 and 31-Dec-2009, 178 patients (age 1.5–17.9 years) were enrolled and stratified as GR (108; 61%) or PR (70; 39%). Ninety GR patients were randomized (18 excluded for parental refusal or clinical decision); of these, 77% underwent SCT in CR1. Out of 35 PR patients who were resistant to Induction, 80% achieved CR1 after consolidation (Phase IB). 84% of PR patients received SCT in CR1. Relapse was the first event in 23 (33%), 12 (27%) and 10 (22%) of PR, GR-noIM and GR-IM patients, respectively. The most common site was the bone marrow (74%, 92% and 60% in PR, GR-noIM and GR-IM patients, respectively). Deaths in CR1 were 8, 4 and 2 in PR, GR-noIM and GR-IM patients respectively, none being related to IM. The 4-year DFS was 73% (95% CI: 56% – 84%) in the GR-IM arm and 62% (95% CI: 45% – 75%) in the GR-noIM arm (p=0.24), with a 4-year OS of 85% (95% CI: 70% – 93%) and 73% (95% CI: 54% – 85%), respectively (p= 0.37). A secondary ‘as treated' analysis was performed accounting for 13 patients who switched from GR-noIM to GR-IM, with 4-year DFS of 56% (95% CI: 36% – 72%) and 75% (95% CI: 61% – 85%), respectively (p=0.06). The EFS in PR patients was 54% (95% CI: 40% – 65%) at 2-years and remained constant through 3 and 4 years, with a 4-year OS of 64% (95% CI: 50% – 74%).The most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) across the treatment arms were decreased leukocytes, platelets and granulocyte counts, decreased hemoglobin, and infections. There was no significant difference in the overall frequency of AEs across all 3 patients' groups. Severe adverse events rate was 28% in GR-IM group, 32% in GR-noIM and 34% in PR group. Conclusions. Results suggest that the addition of IM to intensive BFM-type chemotherapy regimens was associated with an approximate 10% advantage in long-term DFS in GR patients which, however, the study was not powered to detect. The PR group treated with IM had improved EFS and OS as compared to historical controls. IM was generally well tolerated on top of intensive chemotherapy with a reassuring safety profile. Disclosures: Biondi: BMS, Novartis, Micromed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


2019 ◽  
Vol 61 (6) ◽  
pp. 830-838
Author(s):  
Åshild M Bose ◽  
Ida R Khan Bukholm ◽  
Geir Bukholm ◽  
Jonn Terje Geitung

Background Rapid technological developments, increased complexity, and increased demand have made patient safety a challenge in radiology. Purpose To uncover the causes and consequences behind patient injury compensation claims in the use of MRI, CT, and conventional X-ray examinations, and to determine the system factors that need to be focused on in order to prevent these events. Material and Methods This descriptive cross-sectional study uses data acquired from The Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation. A total of 240 cases from 2012–2016 were included. Results According to our study, the main factors contributing to patient injury compensation claims in radiology were false-negative findings (48.7%), misinterpretation (13.1%), and “satisfaction of search” (12%). Another source of error was routines (8.7%), mainly where the patient should have been (further) examined using another modality. Other causes were related to communication (7.6%), procedures (2.9%), technical factors (2.5%), organizational and management factors (1.5%), competence (0.7%), location of the lesion (0.7%), patient factors (0.7%), false-positive findings (0.4%), and work environment (0.4%). These events led to delayed diagnosis and/or treatment in the range of 0–3650 days. Conclusion Errors of perception (false negative and “satisfaction of search”) and cognitive errors (misinterpretation) were the main reasons behind patient injury compensation claims in radiology. We suggest that a combination of double-reading, specialization, increased collaboration between professionals, as well as a reduction of unnecessary examinations should be considered to reduce adverse events in radiology.


2008 ◽  
Vol 62 (12) ◽  
pp. 1022-1029 ◽  
Author(s):  
J M Aranaz-Andres ◽  
C Aibar-Remon ◽  
J Vitaller-Murillo ◽  
P Ruiz-Lopez ◽  
R Limon-Ramirez ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document